Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores

The 2010 explosive eruption of Java's Merapi volcano—A ‘100-year’ event

Surono a, 1, Philippe Jousset b,⁎, John Pallister c, 2, Marie Boichu d, 3, M. Fabrizia Buongiorno e, 4,
Agus Budisantoso f, g, 5, Fidel Costa h, Supriyati Andreastuti a, Fred Prata i, 6, David Schneider j, 7,
Lieven Clarisse k, 8, Hanik Humaida f, 5, Sri Sumarti f, 5, Christian Bignami e, 4, Julie Griswold c, 2, Simon Carn l, 9,
Clive Oppenheimer d, m, n, Franck Lavigne o
a
Center of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation, Jalan Diponegoro 57, 40122 Bandung, Indonesia
b
BRGM, 3 Avenue Claude Guillemin, BP36009, 45060 Orléans Cedex 2, France
c
U.S. Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory, 1300 SE Cardinal Court, Vancouver, WA 98604, USA
d
The University of Cambridge, Department of Geography, Downing Place, Cambridge CB23EN, United Kingdom
e
Isituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Via di Vigna Murata 605, 00143 Rome, Italy
f
BPPTK (Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kegunungapian), Jalan Cendana 15, Yogyakarta 55166, Indonesia
g
ISTerre, CNRS, Université de Savoie, 73376 Le Bourget du Lac cedex, France
h
Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University N2-01a-10, Singapore 639798, Singapore
i
Climate and Atmosphere Department, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, PO Box 100, Kjeller, 2027, Norway
j
U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Volcano Observatory, 4230 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA
k
Université Libre de Bruxelle, Unité de Chimie Quantique et Photophysique, Campus du Solbosch, CP160/09, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
l
MTU: Department of Geological/Mining Engineering & Sciences, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton MI 49931, USA
m
Le Studium, Institute for Advanced Studies, Orléans and Tours, France
n
L'Institut des Sciences de la Terre d'Orléans, l'Université d'Orléans, 1a rue de la Férollerie, 45071 Orléans, Cedex 2, France
o
Laboratoire de Géographie Physique, 1 Place A. Briand, 92195 Meudon Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Merapi volcano (Indonesia) is one of the most active and hazardous volcanoes in the world. It is known for
Received 4 September 2011 frequent small to moderate eruptions, pyroclastic flows produced by lava dome collapse, and the large pop-
Accepted 12 June 2012 ulation settled on and around the flanks of the volcano that is at risk. Its usual behavior for the last decades
Available online 21 June 2012
abruptly changed in late October and early November 2010, when the volcano produced its largest and most
explosive eruptions in more than a century, displacing at least a third of a million people, and claiming nearly
Keywords:
Merapi
400 lives. Despite the challenges involved in forecasting this ‘hundred year eruption’, we show that the mag-
Gas emissions nitude of precursory signals (seismicity, ground deformation, gas emissions) was proportional to the large
Satellite imagery size and intensity of the eruption. In addition and for the first time, near-real-time satellite radar imagery
Volcano-seismology played an equal role with seismic, geodetic, and gas observations in monitoring eruptive activity during a
Deformation major volcanic crisis. The Indonesian Center of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) is-
Petrology sued timely forecasts of the magnitude of the eruption phases, saving 10,000–20,000 lives. In addition to
International collaboration reporting on aspects of the crisis management, we report the first synthesis of scientific observations of
the eruption. Our monitoring and petrologic data show that the 2010 eruption was fed by rapid ascent of
magma from depths ranging from 5 to 30 km. Magma reached the surface with variable gas content resulting

⁎ Corresponding author. Now at GFZ German Research Center, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany. Tel.: +49 331 288 1299.
E-mail addresses: surono@vsi.esdm.go.id (Surono), pjousset@gfz-potsdam.de (P. Jousset), jpallist@usgs.gov (J. Pallister), mboichu@lmd.polytechnique.fr (M. Boichu),
fabrizia.buongiorno@ingv.it (M.F. Buongiorno), agusbudisantoso@yahoo.com (A. Budisantoso), fcosta@ntu.edu.sg (F. Costa), andreastuti@vsi.esdm.go.id (S. Andreastuti),
fred.prata@nilu.no (F. Prata), djschneider@usgs.gov (D. Schneider), Lieven.Clarisse@ulb.ac.be (L. Clarisse), hanik_bpptk@yahoo.co.id (H. Humaida), merapi_bpptk@yahoo.com
(S. Sumarti), christian.bignami@ingv.it (C. Bignami), griswold@usgs.gov (J. Griswold), scarn@mtu.edu (S. Carn), co200@cam.ac.uk (C. Oppenheimer), franck.lavigne@univ-paris1.fr
(F. Lavigne).
1
Tel.: +62 22 727 2606.
2
Tel.: +1 360 993 8964.
3
Now at Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau cedex, France. Tel.: +33 169335171.
4
Tel.: +39 0651860439.
5
Tel.: +62 274 514192.
6
Tel.: +47 94790897.
7
Tel.: +1 907 786 7037.
8
Tel.: +32 26502415.
9
Tel.: +1 906 487 1756.

0377-0273/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2012.06.018
122 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135

in alternating explosive and rapid effusive eruptions, and released a total of ~0.44 Tg of SO2. The eruptive be-
havior seems also related to the seismicity along a tectonic fault more than 40 km from the volcano,
highlighting both the complex stress pattern of the Merapi region of Java and the role of magmatic pressur-
ization in activating regional faults. We suggest a dynamic triggering of the main explosions on 3 and 4
November by the passing seismic waves generated by regional earthquakes on these days.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Merapi stratovolcano is located 25–30 km north of the metropoli-
tan area of Yogyakarta, Indonesia (Fig. 1) and the environs are home
to around of 1.6 million people. It overlies the Java subduction zone
and is composed mainly of basaltic-andesite tephra, pyroclastic flow,
lava, and lahar deposits. Eruptions during the twentieth century typi-
cally recurred every 4 to 6 years and produced viscous lava domes
that collapsed to form pyroclastic flows and subsequent lahars.
These eruptions were relatively small, with typical eruptive volumes
of 1–4×10 6 m 3 and magnitudes or volcanic explosivity indices (VEI)
of 1–3 (Andreastuti et al., 2000; Camus et al., 2000; Newhall et al.,
2000; Voight et al., 2000a), where magnitude (Pyle, 2000) is given
by [Me =log10(mass of products in kg)−7]. Merapi volcano has been
studied extensively by Indonesian and international teams, leading
to improved understanding of the volcano's seismology (Hidayat et
al., 2000; Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet, 2000; Sens-Schönfelder and
Wegler, 2006), deformation (Beauducel and Cornet, 1999; Voight et
al., 2000b; Young et al., 2000), potential field geophysics (Jousset et
al., 2000; Zlotnicki et al., 2000; Tiede et al., 2005), gas emissions (Le
Guern and Bernard, 1982; Nho et al., 1996; Zimmer and Erzinger,
2003; Humaida et al., 2007; Toutain et al., 2009; Allard et al., 2011),
petrology (Gertisser and Keller, 2002, 2003; Chadwick et al., 2007;
Deegan et al., 2010, 2011), physical volcanology (Charbonnier and
Gertisser, 2008) and lahar inundation (Lavigne et al., 2000). Merapi's
high-temperature (400–850 °C) summit fumaroles, continuous gas
emissions, and frequent small eruptions indicate an open and hot
pathway for magma ascent to the near-surface. At the summit vent
level, lava domes have typically plugged the uppermost part of the
conduit except during eruptions when magmatic pressure built and
new domes composed of mostly degassed magma extruded and col-
lapsed or much more infrequently, gas-rich explosive eruptions
occurred.
The lack of large explosive eruptions at Merapi during the several
decades preceding 2010 is attributed to extensive degassing during
ascent of the magma through the volcano's subsurface plumbing

Pos Jrakah Samiran

Ketep Pos Selo
Ngadirejo Cepogo
Ngampel GRW
15 km Tlatar Pos Babadan
N PAS
KLA PUS
Krajan L56
Talun GMR Merapi 10 km
Mungkid DEL
LBH
Muntilan Pos Ngepos
PLA Kinorejo 07°35’ S
Karang
Srumbung Kaliurang
Kaliurang Pos Kaliurang
selatao Tegalweru
Kopeng
Semen Imorejo Karanggeneng
Soprayan
Sawungan
Dokpong
Ngluwar Watuadeg
Tempel Pakem Bronggang Kadipolo 07°40’ S

Pantogwetan Medari gede Grogolan

Ngemplak
Kregolan 20 km
Sleman
Ngebel cilik
Cebongan lor
Bokoharjo 07°45’ S
Tirtomartani
Sidoagung Prambanan
Yogyakarta
Sumberagug
0 2 km
Ambarketawang BPPTK Adisucipto
Airport

110°20’ E 110°30’ E

Fig. 1. Index map showing the location of Merapi volcano summit and other features referred to in the text, e.g., observatory post stations (“Pos” in Indonesian), the Merapi Ob-
servatory and Technology Center (BPPTK), major drainages (abbreviated “K.” for “Kali” in Indonesian), short-period permanent seismic stations (full inverted triangles, PUS,
DEL, PLA, KLA), temporary broadband stations (empty inverted triangles, LBH, GMR, GRW, PAS, L56=WOR at summit). Cities and towns are indicated by name. In addition, hun-
dreds of smaller villages are present on the flanks of the volcano. Major highways are indicated by heavy dashed–dotted lines and the red arcs at 10, 15, and 20 km radius distances
from the summit indicate evacuation zones that were put into effect at different times during the eruptive activity (see text for details).
 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
system (Le Cloarec and Gauthier, 2003). However, stratigraphic evi-
dence shows that large explosive eruptions, such as the one that
took place in 1872 (Hartmann, 1934) also occur. Because of the rela-
tively open-pathway for magma ascent and the lack of explosive
eruptions in the recent past, it was feared that precursors to such a
large eruption might only be modest and inadequately appreciated.
The increasing population on the volcano flanks meant that a large
eruption could result in tens to hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Fortunately, although of short duration and rapidly escalating,
large-magnitude precursors were recognized and identified in time
to issue warnings for the impending large 2010 eruption, which had
a VEI and Me of about 4.
We report on the monitoring techniques, data, and warning issues
that came into play and were gathered during the 2010 eruptive
sequence. Main explosive events occurred on 26 October (~10:00 UTC),
29 October (~17:10–19:00 UTC), 31 October (~7:30 and ~8:15 UTC), 1
November (~3:00 UTC), 3 November (~8:30 UTC), 4 November (17:05
UTC). We use a combination of petrologic, seismologic, geodetic, and
gas emission data, along with remotely sensed observations of changes
in morphology and eruption rate to propose a preliminary model for
this ‘100-year’ eruption.
In Section 2, we describe technical details of both “traditional”
monitoring methods used at Merapi volcano and “state-of-the-art”
satellite observations, extensively used during the 2010 eruption. In
Section 3, we describe the chronology of the eruption and how our
geophysical and satellite observations were interpreted, leading to
timely warnings that saved 10,000–20,000 lives. In Section 4, a pre-
liminary eruption model is proposed, based on our analysis of the
available monitoring signals and petrological data. Finally, we suggest
that the management and decision-making during the crisis were
successful thanks to a combination of long-term in-country expertise
in dealing with volcanic crises and an unprecedented level of inter-
national collaboration. We conclude in summarizing observations
and interpretations on the eruption dynamics and propose a series
of questions that need to be addressed for a better understanding of
Merapi's most explosive eruption of the past 100 years.
2. Observational methods used during the 2010 Merapi eruption
Merapi has long been monitored using seismology, deformation,
gas emission studies and petrology (Purbawinata et al., 1996) by
CVGHM and its observatory and technology center in Yogyakarta
(Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kegunungapian, or
BPPTK). Under non-eruptive conditions, the rate of inflation/deflation
(measured as change in lengths of Electronic Distance Measurement
(EDM) lines between the volcano's summit and flanks) is ~0.003md−1;
the cumulative seismic energy release is less than 35 MJ d −1 with
daily averages of 5 multiphase earthquakes and 1 volcano-tectonic
earthquake; the baseline SO2 flux is ~50–100 Mg d −1 (Nho et al.,
1996; Humaida et al., 2007), and the long-term eruption rate is
1.2×10 6 m 3 yr −1 (Siswowidjoyo et al., 1995).
2.1. Geodesy
Deformation was measured using both tiltmeters near the sum-
mit and an Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) network. The
Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) network utilized reflectors
at high elevations on all flanks and measurements were carried out
from five observation posts (Jrakah, Babadan, Selo, Kaliurang, and
Ngepos) at distances of ~5–10 km from the summit of Merapi (Fig. 1).
2.2. Seismology
Seismic monitoring and analysis were carried out in real time
and used qualitatively during the crisis to infer magmatic and erup-
tive processes. Earthquake activity was monitored with four short-
123
period (Mark Products L-4 seismometers) permanent stations (PUS,
KLA, DEL, and PLA, Fig. 1) and a real-time temporary broadband seis-
mological network of five stations: one Streikesen STS-2 (station LBH)
and four Güralp CMG-40TD sensors (stations GMR, GRW, PAS, and
WOR) from July 2009 to September 2010, and then station L56 from
September 2010. Seismometers installed in July 2009 were part of
the MIAVITA (MItigate and Assess risk from Volcanic Impact on
Terrain and human Activities) European research project (Thierry et
al., 2008). Technical problems including poor synchronization (lack
of GPS signal) prevented a full analysis in real-time at some stations
(GMR, L56, LBH).
The seismicity at Merapi volcano during the 2010 crisis revealed
that all types of earthquakes previously identified at Merapi
(Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet, 2000) were represented in the 2010
activity: Volcano-Tectonic (VT) earthquakes, Low-Frequency earth-
quakes (LF), tremor, “Multiphase” earthquakes (MP), “guguran”=
rock falls (RF), and Very-Long Period events (VLP). Real Time
Seismic Amplitude (RSAM) data (Murray and Endo, 1992; Endo
and Murray, 1999) played a crucial role in evaluating the status of
the volcano activity during the eruptive sequence. Also, as part of
the MIAVITA project, a seismic station (CRM) was set-up at about
46 km south from the summit close to the Opak fault, source for a
M6.3 earthquake that killed more than 6000 people during the prior
eruption of Merapi volcano in 2006. During 4 November, stations PUS,
KLA, DEL, L56 and PAS were destroyed, and the remaining PLA station
(at 6 km) was saturated (>0.025 mm/s). Consequently, seismic ampli-
tude observations at the CRM station were crucial during the climactic
phase on 4 November (see Section 3). Although close range stations
have been critical for warnings and research during past small eruptions
at Merapi, this eruption clearly illustrates the value of including distal as
well as proximal stations in volcano monitoring networks.
To locate events, we performed seismic analysis using the STA/LTA
(Short-term Average/Long-term Average) detection technique and
picked P-phases (and when possible S‐phases) using an algorithm
which includes an estimation of picking uncertainty (e.g., Jousset et
al., 2011). We located VT earthquakes using both a linear (Lahr,
1999) and a non-linear location iterative technique, which searches
for the best fit between observed (picked) travel times and synthetic
travel times. The latter are computed at regularly distributed points
on a 3D-grid in the volcanic edifice, where velocity and density are
parameterized. Computation is performed first with a coarse grid
and subsequent iterations use a refined grid set-up around the hypo-
center location found at the first iteration, and a volume defined by
the 68% confidence level surface (e.g., Jousset et al., 2011). This meth-
od allows a fast hypocenter computation and can be implemented in
real-time. Unfortunately, synchronization problems prevented us
from implementing this technique in real-time during Merapi's erup-
tion. Hypocenter positions were calculated as soon as possible during
the eruption. Hypocenter positions are affected by lack of a detailed
velocity model for shallow levels of the crust at Merapi (Wegler and
Luehr, 2001; Wagner et al., 2007; Kulakov et al., 2009). They are
located along the length of the conduit down to 8km below the
summit. The frequency content of records has been analyzed through a va-
riety of signal processing tools and methods (e.g., Lesage, 2009), including
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), complex frequency analysis (Sompi method,
e.g., Kumagai, 2009), and particle motion analysis.
2.3. Satellite SAR, visible, and near-visible imagery
A variety of satellite data were utilized including commercial Syn-
thetic Aperture Radar (SAR) from the COSMO SkyMed RADARSAT-2,
TerraSAR-X sensors, and when weather and orbits permitted, ther-
mal infrared from the ASTER sensor and high-resolution visible and
near-infrared data from the GeoEye 1 and WorldView-2 sensors.
Cloud cover limited exploitation of data from optical sensors. Howev-
er, the radar satellites supplied frequent and detailed images of the
124 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
volcano summit crater, rapidly growing lava domes, vent features,
and pyroclastic flow deposits (including that of the large flow em-
placed on 4 November that extended toward Yogyakarta; see
Section 3). Despite cloud cover, the pyroclastic flow of 26 October
was also detected by ASTER thermal sensor on 1 November. Images
were available for analysis by both volcanologists at the USGS Alaska
and Cascades Volcano Observatories and the Instituto Nazionale di
Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV) in Italy, typically within 2–6 h of ac-
quisition, and critical data and analyses were delivered to CVGHM
within the same time periods each day or in some cases twice a day
during the crisis. The commercial SAR data were collected with hori-
zontal polarization and with beam resolutions that varied from 1 to
8 m, depending on acquisition mode.
2.4. Gas measurements
In-situ monitoring of volcanic gas emissions (H2O, SO2, CO2, H2S, CO,
HCl, H2, O2, and CH4) was carried out by regularly collecting samples
from the Woro solfatara at summit. Sampling was done by bubbling
the gas through NaOH solutions contained in evacuated flasks
(Giggenbach and Goguel, 1988). Measurement of insoluble gas in the
NaOH solution was carried out by gas chromatography. The dissolved
gasses were analyzed using spectrometric and volumetric methods.
Ground-based ultra-violet (UV) Differential Optical Absorption
Spectroscopy (DOAS) measurements (Galle et al., 2003) proved highly
challenging during the eruption because a wide area around the volca-
no was inaccessible (due to the exclusion zone), the plume was
ash-rich, and adverse weather (high humidity and frequent rainfall).
Nevertheless, a combination of gas and ash plume remote sensing
from the ground and satellites provided crucial information on
degassing during the entire 2010 crisis. Satellite data were especially
important during the most explosive phases of eruption, as they provid-
ed measurements of SO2 emissions and maps of volcanic cloud dispers-
al, which were used to issue advisories for aviation hazard mitigation by
the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC) at Darwin, Australia.
Whenever possible, DOAS observations were carried out from
Babadan, Ketep and Yogyakarta, which are 4, 9, and 28 km from the
crater, respectively. Ocean Optics USB2000 spectrometers were used
spanning a wavelength range of ~288–434 nm with a Full Width
Half Maximum (FWHM) spectral resolution of ~0.60 nm. Spectrome-
ters were coupled to a simple quartz-lens telescope mounted on a ro-
tating platform, which enabled scanning of vertically rising plumes,
except on 4 November where the telescope was held in a fixed posi-
tion and pointed toward the dense plume. Each UV spectrum was
recorded with a total integration time of a few seconds. Plume rise
speeds were determined from video images, allowing an estimation
of the SO2 emission rates. The true SO2 flux was under-estimated
when the plume was ash-rich due primarily to hindered UV transmis-
sion through the dense plume (especially on 4 and 12 Nov).
SO2 burdens in the plume were available daily from satellites, uti-
lizing the infrared (IR) IASI sensor (Infrared Atmospheric Sounding
Interferometer, Clarisse et al., 2008) with overpasses at ~9:30 AM
and ~9:30 PM local time, and every 24 h from the UV OMI sensor
(Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Carn et al., 2008) with overpasses at
~1:30–2:00 PM local time. Sparse data from the AIRS sensor (Atmo-
spheric Infrared Sounder, Prata and Bernardo, 2007), with overpasses
at ~1:30 AM and ~1:30 PM local time, were also available during the
paroxysmal phase. OMI is able to detect SO2 emissions in the lower
troposphere whereas IASI and AIRS are restricted to SO2 in the upper
troposphere (above ~5 km altitude) or higher, where most plumes
traveled during the explosive phases of the eruption. For simplicity
in IASI and AIRS retrievals, we assumed a plume altitude of 16 km dur-
ing the entire eruption. Plume altitudes reported by the Darwin VAAC
were used to assign the appropriate SO2 altitude for OMI retrievals
(~17 km for 4–5 November, and altitudes in the ~5–8 km range after
5 November). Subtracting the SO2 burdens from two consecutive
images allowed us to evaluate a mean SO2 flux (on 12 or 24 h
depending on the sensor), assuming negligible SO2 depletion in the
plume. The OMI detection limit is roughly evaluated at ~200 Mg d −1,
based on estimations of the SO2 flux from ground DOAS measure-
ments. Fluxes can be under-estimated when the satellite swath does
not span the entire plume, so we restrict our evaluation of fluxes to
cases when satellite swaths intersected most of the volcanic cloud.
Unfortunately, the presence of a dispersed aged plume in images
from 5 to 9 November impeded accurate estimation of new SO2 emis-
sions from the volcano using IASI images. However, analysis of the
area immediately downwind of Merapi with OMI data permitted esti-
mation of SO2 release from new emissions during this period. Prior to
5 November and after 9 November, IASI could not detect any SO2 emis-
sions, probably due to the low altitude of the plume.
2.5. Petrological methods and electron microprobe analyses
Samples were observed first with the optical microscope using
reflected and transmitted light and modes counted. Textures and grain
sizes and relations between minerals were recorded. Minerals and glass
were analyzed for Si, Al, Ti, Fe, Mn, Mg, Na, K, F, Cl, and S in polished sec-
tions using a JEOL-JXA-8530F electron microprobe (EM) at the Nanyang
Technological University (Singapore) using wavelength dispersive
spectrometers. An accelerating voltage of 15kV, current of 15nA, and
spot size of about 1μm were used for mineral analyses. For glass the
current was decreased to 10nA, and spot sizes increased to 5 to
10 mm. Na and K were always counted first. Counting times were 10 s
peaks and 5 s on backgrounds for the major elements, and up to 120 s
for peaks and 60s for backgrounds for S. Backscattered electron images,
and X-ray distribution maps were also obtained with the EM. Standards
used in the calibration were minerals from Astimex (albite, garnet, ru-
tile, pyrite, olivine, sanidine, diopside, celestite, fluorite, biotite, rhodo-
nite, and tugtupite). The calibration was checked against an in-house
dacite glass standard analyzed by X-ray fluorescence. Precisions vary
according to concentration: major elements have 2-sigma precisions
of 0.5–1%; precisions for minor elements are 5–10%.
3. 2010 Eruption: monitoring, chronology, warnings, and impacts
3.1. Alert levels at Merapi volcano
The early warning system at Merapi is the same as at all volcanoes
in Indonesia and is based on the analysis of instrumental and visual
observations. It comprises 4 alert levels: Level I indicates the activity
of the volcano is in normal state, with no indication of increasing
activity, although poisonous gasses may threaten the area close to
the vent or crater. Level II is set when visual and seismic data indicate
that the activity is increasing. Level III is set when a trend of increas-
ing unrest is continuing and there is concern that a dangerous erup-
tion may occur. Level IV is set when the initial eruption starts
(i.e., ash/vapor erupts which may lead to a larger and more dangerous
eruption). The alert level is declared to the public through the Nation-
al Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB) and the local govern-
ments. For each level, CVGHM gives recommendations for what the
people living around the volcano are supposed to do. However, orders
to the public such as evacuation orders are given by BNPB and local
governments, which also organize evacuations.
3.2. Intrusion phase (31 October 2009–26 October, 2010)
EDM (Electronic Distance Measurement) data provided some of
the earliest signs of precursory unrest in November 2009, when an
extended period of deflation that followed the 2006 eruption reversed
to inflation. Early indications of increased seismic activity included
swarms of volcano-tectonic (VT) earthquakes on 31 October 2009, 6
December 2009, and 10 June 2010. In September 2010, marked
 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135 125

increases in ground inflation (Fig. 2), earthquake counts and seismic SO2 ratios was detected in fumarole gas composition between the
energy release (Fig. 3), temperature, CO2, and H2S abundances of sum- end of September and 20 October (Table 1). The number of both
mit fumaroles (Table 1) were observed. Based on these changes, on 20 volcano-tectonic (VT) earthquakes corresponding to shear fracturing
September 2010, CVGHM raised the alert from level I (normal back- in the edifice and multiphase events (MP, also called “hybrid” earth-
ground conditions) to level II (increased activity) in anticipation of quakes) corresponding to magma movement increased exponentially
what many expected to be another small to moderate size eruption. in October 2010 (Fig. 3). Besides the sharp increase of VT and MP
The period from 20 September until the initial explosive eruption events, the number and magnitude of rock falls (RF) also intensified
on 26 October was marked by a dramatic increase in all monitored prior to the eruption. From 1 to 18 October, more than 200 very-
parameters (Aisyah et al., 2010; Figs. 2, 3, 9). No localized deforma- long-period (VLP) signals were recorded at summit stations, with
tion on the northern flank was detected by the Northern EDM lines. some large VLP events recorded at all broadband stations.
On the contrary the rate of shortening of the line between the summit Compared to previous eruptions, the greater frequency of earth-
and south flank of the volcano (indicative of summit inflation) fol- quakes, the amplitude of released seismic energy, the rapid and
lowed an exponential trend from b10 mm d −1 in early September to large deformation (from EDM), and significant gas emissions impli-
>500 mm d −1 just before the eruption on 26 October. The resulting cated a larger volume of magma than seen in the past decades of Mer-
cumulative shortening was ~3 m (Fig. 2). Typically preceding erup- api's episodic activity. During this period of rapid escalation, on 21
tions of Merapi there is significant shortening of EDM lines on the October CVGHM raised the alert from level II to III (indicating a
south side of the volcano while EDM lines on the north side show lit- much higher level of unrest and increased likelihood of eruption).
tle change. Consequently, it is generally thought that the north side of On 25 October at 06:00 local time, after seismicity and deformation
the volcano is effectively buttressed by the adjacent northern volca- increased to unprecedented levels, the alert was raised to its highest
no, Merbabu. Prior to the 26 October eruption, however, the seismic- level IV and CVGHM warned that there was a high probability of a
ity rate increased and SO2 fluxes reached levels comparable to the large explosive eruption, greater in magnitude than those of recent
highest rates observed during past Merapi eruptions (from 1992 to history. The level IV alert called for evacuation of several tens of thou-
2007) (Figs. 3 and 9). A remarkable increase in CO2/SO2 and H2S/ sands of people within a region extending to a radius of 10 km from
the volcano's summit.

a 0.5 3.3. Initial explosive phase (26 October–1 November)

Babadan (W)
0 The 25 October forecast proved accurate and timely as 35 h after
Jrakah (N) the alert was issued, an explosive eruption began at 10:02 UTC on 26
Relative Distance (m)

−0.5 October and ended at ~12:00 UTC. This eruption generated an ash
plume that reached 12 km altitude, released SO2 emissions much larg-
Eruption
−1 er than recorded during previous Merapi eruptions (from 1992 to
Kaliurang (S)
2007), and produced pyroclastic density currents that extended 8 km
−1.5 down the Kali Gendol and Kali Kuning drainages on the south flank
of the volcano. The eruption killed the renowned mystical guardian
−2
of Merapi volcano, Mbah Marijan and 34 others who had refused to
Level evacuate the village of Kinahrejo, located 7 km from the summit.
−2.5
III Level Repeated acquisitions of commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar
Level I Level II
IV (SAR) data from the COSMO-SkyMed, RADARSAT, and TerraSAR-X
−3
30/08 09/09 19/09 29/09 09/10 19/10 29/10 satellites and delivery of these data within hours of collection enabled
Time near real time monitoring of changes at the volcano's summit and
mapping of the extent of pyroclastic density currents, despite cloud
b 600 6861.5 cover during much of the eruptive episode. The explosive eruptions
on 26 and 31 October removed the 2006 lava dome, enlarged and
500 6861.0 deepened the summit crater, deeply incised the headwall of the Kali
Displacement rate (mm/day)

Distance Rk4
Gendol drainage (Fig. 4a,b), and produced a pink (oxidized) tephra
Speed
400 6860.5 layer and clast-poor sandy pyroclastic flow deposits. Backscattered
Distance (m)

electron images obtained with the electron microprobe show that

300 6860.0 many fragments in the deposits are weathered and altered, probably
derived from the old summit dome complex; however a minor com-
200 6859.5
ponent of vesicular andesite scoria may represent the initial 2010 ju-
Eruption

venile magma. Based on analysis of radar images from before and

100 6859.0
after the eruption, we estimate that the 26 October eruption excavat-
ed ~6×10 6 m 3 of mainly non-juvenile material from the summit.
L ev el I I I

L ev el I V

0 6858.5
Level I Level II
A period of relative quiescence ensued on 26–28 October and was
−100 6858.0 followed by smaller explosive eruptions on 29 October (~17:10–19:00
1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 UTC), 31 October (~7:30 and ~8:15 UTC) and 1 November (~3:00 UTC).
September 2010 October 2010 More than 150 large low-frequency (LF) earthquakes (with dominant
frequencies ~2 Hz) occurred between 29 October and 3 November. Fol-
Fig. 2. Electronic Distance Measurement data for lines between observatory posts and the
summit of Merapi (see Fig. 1). Reflectors near the summit of the volcano were destroyed lowing Chouet (1996), we attributed these LF earthquakes to move-
by the eruption of 26 October, preventing further observations. Shortening of EDM lines ment of gas and magma within the edifice.
between the volcano's summit and flanks is indicative of pressurization and inflation of These observations confirm that the 2010 eruption did not begin
the upper part of the volcano with magma, whereas increasing distances indicates defla- with extrusion of lava (which characterized the recent eruptions of
tion. (a) EDM observations for 3 lines Babadan-summit (West) Jrakah-summit (North)
and Kaliurang-summit (Rk4 reflector, South). “Relative Distance” refers to the change in
Merapi volcano) but instead with an explosive cratering event. They
line length with respect to time, reference taken arbitrarily on 1 September 2010. (b) De- also raised CVGHM concerns that the 2010 eruption could be larger
tail of the Kaliurang-summit EDM line, and displacement rate. than those of the past century.
126 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135

3.4. Magmatic phase (1 November–7 November)
Satellite radar imagery revealed that the dome growth during the
period 1–4 November was extremely rapid for Merapi. The average
rate for this period was 25 m 3 s −1, two orders-of-magnitude greater
than during recent dome-building eruptions (Hammer et al., 2000),
and an order-of-magnitude greater than the relatively rapid rates in-
ferred to have taken place at Merapi during the most explosive erup-
tive episodes of the 19th century (Hartmann, 1935; Newhall and
Melson, 1983). Between 1 and 4 November, the new summit lava
dome grew to ~5×10 6 m 3 in volume (Fig. 4c,d). The initial period of
this rapid dome growth was accompanied by a relatively low level
of SO2 degassing compared to the more explosive phases of the erup-
tion (Fig. 9).
On 3–4 November, eruptive intensity increased again with stron-
ger degassing and a series of explosions, some of which could be
heard in Yogyakarta. Early on 3 November, data from close-range
seismic stations became saturated (>0.025 mm/s) due to increased
intensity of tremor (corresponding to continuous eruption and strong
degassing). Seismic signals from the Imogiri station, located 46 km
south of summit, showed increased amplitude that correlated with
RSAM peaks from proximal stations, which were attributed to the re-
peated explosions (Fig. 5a,c). SO2 emission rates a few orders of mag-
nitude higher than recorded in previous eruptions were detected

Fig. 3. (a) Daily count of the seismicity recorded at Merapi during 2010 eruption. VT = Volcano-tectonic; MP = Multiphase (=Hybrid earthquake); LF = low-frequency; Rockf =
Rockfall earthquakes; Pyroclastic F = Pyroclastic flows; RSAM = Real-time Seismic Amplitude Measurement. (b) Location of VT earthquakes prior and during the eruption.
 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135 127

Fig. 3 (continued).

(Fig. 9). A large explosion occurred on November 3 at 08:40 UTC explosion, indicating continuous eruption, and continuous pyroclastic
(Fig. 5a). CVGHM recommended extending the evacuation zone on flows.
the west and south from 10 km to 15 km on 3 November at 9:05 UTC, On 4 November, the tremor increased again and was felt as Mercalli
which increased the number of displaced people to more than intensity 2–3 shaking at 10–20 km from the volcano. All four proximal
100,000. Pyroclastic flows on 3 November reached 12 km (at 10:30 real-time seismic stations were completely saturated (>0.025 mm/s).
UTC), without casualties. Intense volcanic tremor continued after the Seismic amplitudes from the distal Imogiri station at the time of the cli-
mactic explosion (4 November at ~17:05 UTC) were up to 5 times larger
than signals associated with the 3 November explosion (Fig. 5b,d). This
observation, along with unusually rapid rates of dome extrusion recog-
Table 1 nized in satellite data from the preceding 3 days, prompted the decision
Major-element analyses of juvenile components from pyroclastic flows from Merapi
volcano and gas analyses from the summit Woro fumarole field. n.d. = not detected.
to extend the exclusion zone again, from 15 to 20 km on the southwest
Fumarole gas analyses are individual samples on 26 May and 20 October. September and south (Fig. 1).
averages are for 3 samples analyses. On May analysis, peaks of H2 and O2 +Ar can be The intermittent and sometimes sustained explosive eruptions
separated; since August 2010, H2 +O2 are analyzed together. during the night (local time) of 4–5 November (included the climactic
Year 2010 2006 1954–1998a 1872 eruption on 4 November at 17:05 UTC) produced an ash column that
ascended to 17 km altitude along with a pyroclastic flow that traveled
avg. s.d.
~16 km along the Kali Gendol drainage in the direction of Yogyakarta
SiO2 55.8 55.9 55.5 0.2 52.5 (~15 km radial distance from the summit). These events took place
Al2O3 19.2 19.2 19.1 0.1 18.9
Fe2O3b 7.78 7.45 7.53 0.07 9.51
several hours after the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
MgO 2.33 2.36 2.42 0.02 3.47 (Figs. 4c and 6). The flows and related surges of 4–5 November des-
CaO 8.27 8.23 8.22 0.08 9.55 troyed numerous evacuated villages over a broad area of the upper
Na2O 3.90 3.50 3.74 0.13 3.05 slopes of the volcano and in an overbank-surge area of ~13 km 2
K2O 2.16 2.17 2.24 0.02 1.98
(Figs. 4e, 6a) lower on the flank, including the village of Bronggang,
TiO2 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.02 0.88
P2O5 0.32 0.37 0.31 0.01 0.37 where unfortunately, evacuations had not yet taken place and many
MnO 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.01 0.21 of the 367 fatalities occurred. Additional pyroclastic flows traveled
lesser distances along the upper sections of other drainages on the
2010 Fumarole gas analyses
northwest, west, and southern slopes of the volcano.
(mol%)
Post-eruption images of the summit show a new, roughly circular
26 May Sept. avg. 20-Oct. 20-Oct.
crater with a diameter of ~400 m, breeched on the southeast by a slop-
T (°C) 460 575 575 575 ing trough that extends down slope along the path of Kali Gendol
H2 +O2 0.07 0.0013c 0.02c 0.4c (Fig. 4f). The new dome (together with much of the former summit)
N2 1.1 0.1 0.02 3.0
CH4 0.01 n.d. 0.01 0.03
was destroyed during the climactic explosive eruption on 4 November
CO n.d. 0.01 0.03 0.2 (Fig. 4e,f). Our image analysis indicates that in addition to removing
CO2 5.6 10 34.6 62.6 the new lava dome, the eruption of 4–5 November excavated an addi-
SO2 0.8 1.0 0.3 2.6 tional 10×10 6 m 3 or more of non-juvenile material from the pre-2010
H2S 0.2 0.45 2.5 4.7
summit dome complex.
HCl 0.2 0.36 0.6 0.5
HF n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. On 6 November, tremor amplitude decreased slowly in parallel
NH3 0.01 0.5 2.8 2.6 with decreased explosive activity. Later on 7–8 November, RSAM in-
H2O 92 87 58.8 23.3 creased again and remained at relatively high levels for another
CO2/SO2 7 10 115 24 2 days, which prompted CVGHM to quickly rebuild parts of the seismic
CO2/H2S 28 22 14 13
CO2/HCl 28 28 58 125
monitoring system that were heavily damaged during the climactic
CO2/H2O 0.06 0.1 0.6 2.7 eruption on 5 November. Due to danger, new stations were temporar-
a ily set-up more than 10 km from the summit (e.g., at Ketep, see Fig. 1).
Average (avg.) and standard deviation (s.d.) of analyses from 1954, 1957, 1992,
1994 and 1998 of Gertisser and Keller (2003). The destroyed stations (PUS, DEL, and KLA) were rebuilt after the
b
All Fe reported as Fe2O3. eruption ended. RADARSAT images collected at 11:00 and 23:00 UTC
c
H2 +O2. on 6 November show that rapid extrusion resumed on 6 November
128 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
Fig. 4. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images of the summit of Merapi volcano before and
after the times of the 26 October explosive eruption and the 4 November explosive erup-
tions. For clarity, images are oriented with respect to line of sight of the radar. Arrows in-
dicate north (N) direction and approximate scale. G (Kali Gendol), K (Kali Kuning), Kj
(Kinahrejo). a, RADARSAT image, 11 October, 2009. Arrow indicates the 2006 lava
dome. b, TerraSAR-X image, 26 October, showing new summit crater (arrow) produced
by explosive eruption of 26 October. c, TerraSAR-X image, 4 Nov 2010, showing large
(~5×106 m3) lava dome (D). Pyroclastic flow deposits (PF) from the 26 October eruption
appear dark in the radar images. d, Enlargement of the summit area of image a.
e, RADARSAT image of 5 November, 2010, showing pyroclastic flow deposits (PF, dark
gray) and surge deposits (S, light gray). These deposits formed earlier during the main
phase of the 4–5 November explosive eruption. An enlarged, elongate crater, produced
by the November 4–5 eruption is also evident at the summit. f, Enlargement of the summit
area of image c.
Fig. 5. Record of the seismic amplitude at Imogiri station located 46 km south of Merapi volcano. a, Normalized vertical component signals recorded at a proximal station (DEL,
Deles, 4 km from Merapi's summit) and at a distal station (CRM, Imogiri, 46 km south) during the 3 November explosion sequence. T symbols indicate small (Mb~1) tectonic earth-
quakes on the Opak fault, E symbols indicate explosions at the Merapi volcano summit. b, Same as a for data from 4 November. c, RSAM computed for stations DEL and CRM
(Imogiri) on 3 November. Note that RSAM at DEL is multiplied by 108 for clarity. d, Same as c for data from 4 November.
and produced a new ~1.5×10 6 m 3 lava dome in b12 h at a minimum
effusion rate of 35 m 3 s −1. The increased tremor amplitude and very
large extrusion rate again raised concerns of the possibility of another
even larger eruptive phase, which fortunately did not ensue.
3.5. Waning phase (8–23 November)
After 8 November, seismic activity (mainly tremor and some
volcano-tectonic earthquakes probably associated with stress read-
justment after the large eruption) started to slowly decrease in inten-
sity. Satellite data indicated that dome growth ceased by 8 November
and was followed by a period of dome subsidence and gas and ash
emissions from several vents adjacent to or penetrating the new
lava dome. These emissions continued through mid-November with
a decreasing intensity (Fig. 9). On 14 November the exclusion zone
was relaxed from 20 to 15 km on the south and western flanks and
to 10 km on the less-exposed north and eastern flanks of the volcano.
The alert level was decreased from level IV to level III on 3 December
and from level III to level II on 30 December.
Reconfiguration of the summit crater over the course of the erup-
tion channeled the majority of pyroclastic flows and subsequent la-
hars down the Gendol drainage and sparing Kali Kuning the worst
of the eruption. Over 282 lahar events have been identified in almost
all the rivers of the Merapi volcano from October 27, 2010 to February
25, 2012. During the first rainy season, most of the lahar events oc-
curred on the Western flank, mainly in Kali Putih (55 lahars). Fifteen
rain-triggered lahars have been reported during the eruption. Maximum
peak discharge reached 1800m3 s−1 during the 30 March 2011 lahar
event in the Kali Pabelan (max. depth 7m). Discharge estimations of the
lahars in Kali Putih rarely exceed 260m3 s−1. Occurrence of dozens of
lahar flows at the same location led to major changes in the geomorphic
settings of downstream locations, especially along Kali Putih, Pabelan,
Gendol and Opak. River bank erosion and lahar inundation have damaged
678 houses (215 were totally destroyed or buried, 463 partially damages),
most of them along Kali Putih. Twenty sabo-dams and 12 bridges have
been taken away by lahars, and some major roads have been frequently
inundated, such as the main road from Yogyakarta to Magelang and
Semarang (which has been cut more than 20 times).
3.6. Summary and impacts
During the four phases of the eruption, the alert level IV was set be-
fore the first eruption and remained at IV through the end of the crisis.
 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135 129

Fig. 6. Pyroclastic flow deposits illustrated using SAR change detection and thermal channel of ASTER data. a, Perspective view of SAR change detection analysis performed using
two COSMO-SkyMed data acquired on 1 May 2010 and 11 November 2010; the image shows the deposits (black areas) around the pre-eruption channel (white pixels inside black
areas). A total length of about ~15 km and a covered area of 13 km2 have been estimated from this analysis. b, Perspective view of temperature image from ASTER data acquired over
Merapi (foreground) and Merbabu (background) volcanoes on 1 November 2010 (night time); elevated temperatures signify the deposit of the pyroclastic flow of 26 October. The
two temperature profiles along the pyroclastic flow show retrieved temperatures integrated across the 90×90 m2 sensor footprint, total length of the hot area detected by ASTER is
~7.2 km (A–B plus C–D segments), corresponding to the portion of the 26 October flow deposit still very hot on 1 November.

The excluding area radii (10, 15, and 20 km from summit) were the pa-
rameters that were used to increase the threat level. These were timely
set-up and properly estimated. While data from BNPB indicate that a
total of 367 people were killed, 277 injured and 410,388 people were
displaced, the accurate forecasts by CVGHM and prompt evacuations
of many tens of thousands of people saved 10,000–20,000 lives (a con-
servative estimate based on BNPB reports of 2300 houses destroyed and
multiplied by 4 to 8 people associated with each household).
For the first time, Merapi eruptions resulted in major disruptions
of air traffic in Yogyakarta, which has resulted in a paralysis of the
city's activities. During the volcanic crisis, about 2000 flights were
canceled, comprising 1350 flights during the closure of the airport
for 15 days, and 600 flights due to a lack of a sufficient number of res-
ervations after its reopening. Some companies like Garuda Indonesia
suspended or transferred their flights to other airports, whereas the
low cost carriers like Lion Air continued to fly despite the risks in-
volved. The eruption of Merapi was fatal to Mandala Airlines, which
encountered financial problems since 2010 and declared bankruptcy
on 13 January 2011. The eruption disrupted the pilgrimage to Mecca
for thousands of Muslims who had waited and saved for years to be
able to perform. Nevertheless, the organizers were able to cope with
the crisis by relocating the departure airport for the pilgrimage.
4. Insight into eruption dynamics from petrology, seismicity, and
gas observations
4.1. Petrology of the new magma
In contrast to the last VEI 4 eruption of Merapi in 1872, which was
basaltic (Hartmann, 1934) and contained vesicular “breadcrusted”
blocks, juvenile blocks from the main pyroclastic flows of 4–5 November
in Kali Gendol are dense amphibole-bearing pyroxene andesites
with compositions similar to those from 2006 and to other eruptions
of the past few decades (Gertisser and Keller, 2003; Table 1). They
contain ~30% phenocrysts of plagioclase, amphibole, two pyroxenes,
oxides, and 5–10% vesicles in a microlite-bearing groundmass
130 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
Fig. 7. Backscattered electron image of andesite from 4 November, 2010. Sample is
from a prismatically jointed juvenile block collected from a pyroclastic flow deposit
in Kali Gendol. The large grain at the center of the image is a nearly euhedral amphibole
(AM) phenocryst which has a very thin (or absent) reaction rim and a melt inclusion
(MI) with 1200 ppm S. The bright white grains in the image are magnetite (MT),
black areas are vesicles (VES), and the groundmass contains abundant plagioclase, py-
roxene and magnetite microlites and interstitial glass. Other areas of the sample con-
tain abundant complexly zoned plagioclase, clinopyroxene and orthopyroxene. The
inset enlargement shows detail of the groundmass: elongate dark microlites are plagio-
clase, bright grains are magnetite and pyroxene and the intermediate gray areas are
66–68% SiO2 glass. The circular spot is a 5 μm-diameter electron beam damage area.
(Fig. 7). Tephra deposits from the 2010 eruption, collected at the
Ngepos observatory (11 km SW of the summit and near the axis
of the plume) are thin (5 cm total, of which 2 cm is from the 4–5
November eruption) and non-pumiceous. The 4–5 November tephra
deposit consists of sand-sized angular broken grains of dense andes-
ite and initial results from isopach mapping suggest a relatively small
bulk volume of b20×10 6 m 3.
Two-pyroxene geothermometry (Andersen et al., 1993) yields
pre-eruptive temperatures of 1000 °C±20°C. The juvenile samples
contain three types of amphibole crystals: (1) euhedral crystals lacking
reaction rims and containing 13–14wt.% Al2O3, (2) crystals that are tex-
turally similar to type 1 but with lower Al2O3 (10–11wt.%) and higher
F+Cl contents, and (3) rare crystals with thick coarse-grained reaction
borders, yet compositionally similar to type 1. Plagioclase phenocrysts
range from An90 to An45 [An=100×Ca/(Ca+Na+K)], microlites aver-
age An35, and plagioclase–melt equilibria (Lange et al., 2009) indicate
pre-eruptive H2O in melt of 5.0±0.5 wt.%. This abundance of H2O in-
dicates minimum pressures of about 200 MPa or 6 km depth. The pres-
ence of high alumina amphiboles suggests even higher pressures,
perhaps up to 1000MPa as shown in experimental results with more
silica rich melts (e.g., Prouteau and Scaillet, 2003). Glass inclusions in
the amphiboles and pyroxenes contain up to 1200 ppm S and 0.4 wt.%
Cl, whereas, the matrix glass is substantially degassed (microprobe
analyses indicate b100ppm S and b1% H2O).
4.2. Seismicity
We analyzed several low-frequency (LF) earthquakes (including
monochromatic LF earthquakes) recorded on 31 October and 1 November
2010 in terms of their complex frequency content (Kumagai, 2009;
Fig. 8). LF earthquake models (e.g., Chouet, 1986; Neuberg, 2000;
Jousset et al., 2003) explain the frequency content of the LF signals
by modeling the resonance of a fluid-filled container; the frequency
content of the synthetic signals depends on physical properties of
the fluid (volatiles) inside the container and the hosting rock
or magma. Kumagai and Chouet (2000) compared the seismic
Fig. 8. Complex frequency analysis performed on one of the coda of a LF earthquake (31
October 2010 at 00:20) recorded on the vertical component of the station PUS (1 km
from summit, see Fig. 1). a. Record of the LF earthquake; vertical lines indicated the sig-
nal used for the Sompi analysis, enlarged in b. b. Signal used for the analysis. Dotted
line is the modeled seismogram by Sompi analysis. c. Corresponding Fourier spectral
amplitude. d. Plot of the complex frequency of the individual wave elements (frequen-
cies lower than 5 Hz) for all trial of the autoregressive orders (5–40). The clusters of
points within rectangles represent clear signal, and the scattered points represent inco-
herent noise. The dotted lines represent lines along which the factor Q is constant.
attenuation factor (Q) derived from observed and synthetic signals
as an indicator of the nature of the fluid contained in the resonator.
For a large LF event at Merapi on 31 October 2010, we find
Q~20–30 for the fundamental mode. By neglecting intrinsic attenua-
tion effects, these Q values suggest that the fluid was a mixture of
CO2 and H2O (i.e., a large gas component), bubbly water, or basaltic
magma with bubbles (Kumagai and Chouet, 2000; Kumagai, pers.
comm., 2011). Each of these interpretations is consistent with a
large gas influx from depth and/or a large heat pulse which would
produce abundant steam from ground water contained in the edifice
before the magmatic phase. The number of LF per day (22 on 31 Oc-
tober) and their low Q before the magmatic phase suggest the exis-
tence of a high gas content in the rising magma.
In addition, we recorded one regional earthquake (M4.2) that pre-
ceded the sequence of explosions on 3 November and two syn-
eruptive tectonic earthquakes on 3 and 4 November (Fig. 5). The 4
November event was by far the larger of the two and overlaps in time
with the beginning of the climactic phase of the eruption. These obser-
vations suggest that regional tectonic earthquakes may have triggered
higher levels of eruptive activity at Merapi, as conjectured also during
the 2006 Merapi eruption (Walter et al., 2007). More generally, the cor-
respondences between eruptive vigor and local tectonic faulting indi-
cate that pressurization–depressurization cycles during eruptions
affect loading and slip on nearby faults—a relationship that also explains
distal VT earthquakes preceding eruptions (White and Power, 2001;
Posgay et al., 2005), but rarely documented during an eruption.
4.3. Gas observations
The sampling of the fumarolic field of Woro, near the summit of
Merapi, has been regularly performed by CVGHM–BPPTK for many
years, and was stopped for safety reasons a few days before the first
 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135 131

explosive eruption on 26 October 2010 (Table 1). The high tempera-
ture (>400 °C) and low O2 and N2 concentrations are indicative of rel-
atively pristine magmatic gasses (Giggenbach et al., 2001). CO2, SO2,
H2S, and HCl are consequently likely of magmatic origin. We observed
a large increase in temperature and several volatile ratios (CO2/SO2,
CO2/HCl and CO2/H2O) in the months preceding the eruption, with a
remarkably dramatic increase in CO2 abundance, from 10 wt.% in
September 2010 to 35–63 wt.% on 20 October (Table 1). Given the dif-
ferent solubility laws and speciation of CO2, SO2, HCl, and H2O volatile
species (Oppenheimer, 2003), the increase of the gas ratios noted
above points to a progressive shift to a deep degassing source. This
is also supported by the decrease in CO2/H2S, as H2S is the increasing-
ly stable sulfur species with depth and temperature and decreasing
fO2 (oxygen fugacity). This deep source may be an input of fresh
magma, likely of mafic composition, into the Merapi's magmatic sys-
tem, which supplied a volatile phase rich in CO2 and H2S (compared
to SO2, HCl, and H2O degassed at shallower depth). In addition, crustal
decarbonation of limestone may have contributed to CO2 (Deegan
et al., 2010, 2011). Some of the CO2 and H2S escaped to the surface
via a permeable fracture network and was detected at Merapi's high
temperature fumaroles, providing an early warning. Did this new
mafic magma rise to higher level and remobilize a more differentiated
magma, already present in Merapi's magma reservoirs and thereby
trigger its eruption? Although this seems likely (there is evidence of
magma mixing in samples from Merapi, see Borisova et al., 2011),
this question requires further petrological studies that might, for in-
stance, constrain the timing of mixing to just before the eruption as
documented at Pinatubo (Pallister et al., 1996) and Soufrière Hills
volcanoes (Murphy et al., 1998). Nevertheless, the observations indi-
cate degassing of ascending magma which released progressively
larger amounts of SO2, HCl, and H2O.
A time-series of SO2 flux estimated from ground-DOAS and satellite
measurements, which covers all eruptive phases, is shown in Fig. 9.
These emission rates are greatly in excess of both background and erup-
tive emissions recorded at Merapi volcano between 1986 and 2007
(Nho et al., 1996; Humaida et al., 2007) and started well ahead of the cli-
matic phase of the eruption on 4 November 2010. Significant increases
in SO2 emissions accompanied the initial explosive eruptions on 26 and
29/30 October. The SO2 emission rate then decreased to a relatively
‘low’ level for this eruption (but still at elevated levels compared to
past Merapi eruptions) during the first dome-building episode on 1–3
November. Emissions increased again significantly on 3 November, si-
multaneously with increasing tremor amplitude, and peaked during
the climactic explosive eruptions of 4–5 November. Trends of degassing
and RSAM during all phases of the eruption (Fig. 9) show that gas release
was correlated with energetic tremor and high eruption rates during the
most explosive phases of the eruption.
A cumulative SO2 output of ~0.44 Tg is estimated for the entire erup-
tion based on satellite observations. We use the ‘petrologic method’
(Westrich and Gerlach, 1992) to calculate the volume of andesitic

Fig. 9. Comparison between SO2 fluxes and RSAM data. top, Overview of SO2 degassing during the 2010 Merapi volcano eruption (UTC time). SO2 fluxes were determined from
ground-based scanning DOAS measurements (mean fluxes measured over hour-long intervals) and satellite images, from IR IASI and AIRS sensors (mean fluxes calculated
for12 h intervals) and the UV OMI sensor (mean fluxes calculated for 24 h intervals). OMI is more sensitive than IR sensors to lower tropospheric plumes (b5 km altitude). Therefore,
when the plume is weaker, OMI was the primary source of mean SO2 flux estimates. The black line has been manually added to interpolate between discrete values of the SO2 flux to
highlight degassing trends. Ranges for SO2 emissions during and between eruptions taking place between 1999 and 2007 are from scanning correlation spectrometer (COSPEC)
measurements (Nho et al., 1996; Humaida et al., 2007). Question marks indicate gaps in OMI data coverage, or interference from SO2 plumes emitted by other Indonesian volcanoes.
Refer to the text for explanations concerning the reasons of over or under-estimations of the true flux. bottom, RSAM computed for the Plawangan station (6 km from the summit).
A clear correspondence between RSAM and SO2 flux is demonstrated, supporting our identification of four distinct phases to the eruption (indicated by Phases I to IV). E stands for
explosion; L for Lahar.
132 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
magma needed to account for this release of SO2. Assuming the andesite
magma contained 30vol.% phenocrysts, ~1000 ppm by mass of sulfur in
the melt that degassed syn-eruptively (based on Allard et al., 2011; and
our S analyses in glass inclusions which range from a few hundreds to
1200ppm, and the low values of S in matrix glass), and a density of
~2600 kgm −3, then the eruption magnitude would have corresponded
to a dense-rock equivalent volume of lava and tephra of ~0.12 km 3, or a
mass of 3.1×1011 kg.
However, our initial estimate of the bulk volume of the juvenile de-
posits from the 2010 eruption is only ~0.03–0.06km3, consisting of
0.01–0.02km3 of tephra fallout, 0.02–0.04km3 of pyroclastic density cur-
rent deposits (in addition there were 0.01–0.02km3 of non-juvenile ma-
terial excavated from the summit). Correcting to dense-rock equivalent
volumes (based on a mean density of Merapi pyroclastic flow deposits
of ~1950kgm−3 from Lube et al., 2011), suggests a juvenile magma
dense-rock equivalent volume of only 0.02–0.05km3, corresponding to
a mass of 6×1010–1.2×1011 kg. Thus the magnitude based on sulfur re-
lease exceeds by a factor of ~3–5 that represented by the juvenile compo-
nent of the mapped deposits. This mismatch points to the existence of an
exsolved S-rich fluid phase in the pre-eruptive magma body (Wallace,
2001; Shinohara, 2008; Oppenheimer et al., 2011) possibly associated
with deep recharge of new magma, likely of mafic composition, as dis-
cussed above.
4.4. Preliminary eruption model
Taken together, these petrologic, gas composition and flux, seis-
mic, and volcanological observations of the 2010 eruption suggest
that the eruption was fed by unusually rapid ascent of a large volume
of volatile-rich magma from depths of 5–30 km, which pressurized
the volcano and powered the explosive phases of the eruption. Deri-
vation of magmas over such an extensive depth range is consistent
with multiple magma reservoirs as suggested by Chadwick (2008).
As observed at many instances elsewhere, no seismicity deeper than
8–9 km was identified associated with the eruption, consistent with
a hot and aseismic conduit at greater depths. The presence of
euhedral and unreacted amphibole (Fig. 7) is consistent with the rel-
atively high water content as inferred from plagioclase–melt equilib-
ria and indicates rapid ascent (Rutherford, 2008) probably within the
week of rapid escalation in monitoring parameters preceding the 26
October eruption.
Several observations suggest that the unusually explosive charac-
ter of the 2010 eruption was a consequence of separation of a gas
phase from the magma and its rapid transport to the surface: these
include the low vesicularity of juvenile blocks in most of the deposits;
the relatively small volumes of tephra and pyroclastic density current
deposits, given the large explosivity of the 4–5 November eruption;
increased CO2/SO2 and H2S/SO2 ratios in fumarole gasses preceding
the eruption; sulfur in excess of that which can be accounted for by
the erupted magma using the “petrological method”; increased LF
seismicity as indicative of superheated water or high gas content;
and high tremor level after the paroxysmal explosion. The relatively
small volume of tephra and absence of a widespread fine ash cloud
collocated with the extensive SO2 cloud detected by OMI, IASI, and
AIRS are also consistent with separation of a voluminous gas phase
prior to the explosive November 4 eruption. However on this latter
point, we acknowledge that detection of fine ash in tropical volcanic
clouds is challenging due to interference from water vapor, meteoro-
logical clouds and ice (Rose et al., 1995; Tupper et al., 2004). We also
acknowledge that the LF seismicity analysis is hindered by high noise
levels.
The alternation between explosive (26, 29, 31 October, and 4–5
November) and rapid lava dome extrusion (1–4 November and No-
vember 6) suggests variable gas content in the erupting magma.
This was also called on to explain similar differences in eruptive be-
havior during the VEI~4 1930 eruption of Merapi (Van Padang,
1930). We suggest that alternating explosive and effusive eruptive
behavior at Merapi may be the consequence of gas segregation in
magma occurring during ascent in the conduit (Gonnerman and
Manga, 2003; Michaut et al., 2009) and to the non-linear effects of
degassing and crystallization on magma viscosity during ascent at
shallow levels (Melnik and Sparks, 1999).
5. Concluding remarks and perspectives
Rapid ascent of gas-rich magma has been proposed at other highly
explosive eruptions (Castro and Dingwell, 2009), raising concerns that
there may be little time to issue warnings even at long-dormant volca-
noes. Fortunately, despite the rapid onset and short-duration of the
precursory signals leading up to the 26 October and 4 November erup-
tions, CVGHM recognized the precursory activity as signaling that
large explosive eruptions were imminent and issued warnings that
saved many thousands of lives. Recognizing this precursory activity
was possible because CVGHM has had a long history of systematic
real-time monitoring at Merapi, which had been used to establish
baselines and characterize prior volcanic activity. Also fortunately,
due to increased capabilities in communications and satellite remote
sensing, and due to the broad and diverse research focus on Merapi,
international collaborators were able to deliver near-real-time data
and advice that complemented the extensive experience of CVGHM
in interpreting the volcanic activity of Merapi.
The following list summarizes the key observations and interpre-
tations concerning the 2010 eruption:
(1) High levels of CO2, increase in CO2/SO2 and H2S/SO2 recorded
in fumarole gas samples over the months prior to the eruption,
all support a deep degassing source associated with an input of
fresh magma most likely of mafic composition.
(2) Strong degassing was measured during the whole eruption, with
emission rates a few order of magnitude higher than recorded at
Merapi during past eruptions from 1986 to 2007. According to
satellite data, a total of ~0.44Tg of SO2 was released during the
eruption, associated with a plume that disrupted air traffic over
Asia and Australia.
(3) The mass of SO2 detected by satellites is not readily accounted
for by syn-eruptive degassing of the measured ejecta. This mis-
match in sulfur budgeting points to the presence of an ex-
solved fluid phase in the pre-eruptive magma body, which
may have played a crucial role in the ensuing explosivity of
the eruption.
(4) Our petrologic data show that the 2010 magma is chemically
and petrologically similar to that erupted in 2006 except for
the much higher abundance of unreacted amphiboles, which
suggests faster magma ascent.
(5) Deformation was greater than observed during previous erup-
tions, but tightly focussed on the summit and its southern flank.
There was no evidence for broad (edifice-wide) deformation.
(6) A large number and magnitude of earthquakes accompanied
the eruption, including VT, MP, episodes of tremor, as well as
LF and VLP earthquakes. These seismic data indicate transport
of large volumes of magma and fluids.
(7) Rapid rates of lava dome growth and alternation between ex-
plosive and rapid effusion indicate variable gas content of
magma reaching the surface, possibly reflecting gas segrega-
tion in the conduit during ascent.
(8) The summit morphology changed dramatically as a result of the
eruptions (Fig. 10), indicative of both explosive cratering and
collapse.
(9) Lahars following the 2010 eruption were larger than any previ-
ously recorded after previous 20th and 21st century eruptions
of Merapi.
 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
Fig. 10. Morphology of the summit area. a, Before the October–November eruption. b, After the eruption. Depth of the new crater is about 200 m.
Among the main questions that need to be addressed in more de-
tail, we include the following:
(1) How can the magmatic model for the 2010 eruption presented
here be improved? For example: Was magma mixing a trigger
for the eruption and to what degree was limestone decarbon-
ation involved?
(2) Why were most of the juvenile components in the tephra and
flow deposit dense andesite? Where are the more vesicular
juvenile magmatic components (e.g., scoria or pumice) that
one typically associates with such an explosive eruption?
(3) Does the 2010 eruption mark a change to more explosive erup-
tions of Merapi in the future, perhaps as seen in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, and if so, what changes in monitor-
ing, hazard analysis, and early warning protocols are needed?
(4) What new strategies and methods should be implemented for
future research and monitoring of Merapi volcano?
As a result of the effective crisis management, we conclude that in-
ternational collaboration is the way forward to tackle these questions
(Appendix 1). We emphasize the integration of seismic and
satellite remote sensing data for real-time and near-real time mon-
itoring of the eruption and the vital role it thereby played in decision
support, especially with respect to locations of exclusion zones. The
eruption also represented a major test for several international pro-
grams, including MIAVITA and SAFER, to respond with the urgent
need to acquire and interpret diverse sources of data during a major
volcanic crisis. Rapid delivery of satellite data to the responsible au-
thority for emergency response is paramount. In this case, CVGHM's
role as the sole agency tasked with providing forecasts and warnings
to Indonesian communities at risk and to the media was a major factor
in effective handling of the crisis. Nevertheless, there remains consid-
erable scope to enhance access to remote sensing data, to improve ex-
change protocols and data tools, and to facilitate data interpretation
by those working at the front line. We encourage not only wider par-
ticipation in the International Charter for Space and Major Disasters,
but also investment by government space and research agencies to ex-
pand the constellation of operational civilian radar satellite systems.
Merapi's 2010 eruption offers a rich set of scientific data and rep-
resents a case study of international scientific cooperation. This paper,
as a preliminary overview of available observations and interpreta-
tions, aims at providing a starting point for building a more complete
model of the complex eruptive processes that took place at Merapi
volcano in October–November 2010. We encourage further detailed
analyses and studies in order to advance our understanding of, and
ability to forecast explosive volcanism.
Acknowledgments
We all acknowledge efforts of BPPTK staff for their careful monitor-
ing of Gunung Merapi for many years. S. and P.J. acknowledge
discussions with Pierre Thierry, Amélie Vagner, Gonéry Le Cozannet,
133
Jean-Philippe Metaxian, and Philippe Lesage. Hendra Gunawan
(CVGHM) contributed to P.J.'s smooth stay while in Yogyakarta. S. and
J.P. acknowledge the support of USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assis-
tance to the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program for collaborative work
in Indonesia. J.P. also thanks the U.S. Embassy and USAID mission in
Jakarta for their assistance and support, as well as colleagues in the
USGS Advanced Systems Center and Alaska Volcano Observatory for
their remote sensing support. J.P., D.S., and J.G. especially thank USGS
colleagues Ron Keeler, Chris Noyles, Bill Burton, Michele Combs, Tina
Neal and Brenda Jones for their support. L.C. is a Postdoctoral Researcher
with F.R.S.-FNRS. Indyo Pratomo provided ash samples for rock analysis.
P. J. acknowledges the French Embassy in Jakarta for the support for
the mission extension during the eruption. P.J. is also grateful to Marie
Le Sourd (Lembaga Indonesia Perancis), Adrien Picquout and Valérie
Diard for their strong support in Yogyakarta, and many BRGM col-
leagues for remote support and advices. We thank Cynthia Werner,
William Scott, Marcello De Michele, John Evert, Ulrich Wegler and an
anonymous reviewer for their careful reviews of the manuscript,
which improved it. S., P.J., A.B., M.B., F.B., F.P., H. H., S. S. F.L. and C.O.
thank the European MIAVITA project for financial support. The
MIAVITA project is financed by the European Commission under the
7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Develop-
ment, Area “Environment”, Activity 6.1 “Climate Change, Pollution and
Risks”. TerraSAR-X data were provided by the German Space Agency
and RADARSAT and GeoEye data were provided through the Interna-
tional Charter for Space and Major Disasters. ASTER images obtained
via collaboration between NASA JPL and INGV. The SAFER project fi-
nanced by the European Commission provided SAR images. S.C. acknowl-
edges NASA support (award nos. NNX09AJ40G and NNX10AG60G) for
OMI SO2 data analysis. C.O. additionally acknowledges support via the
UK National Centre for Earth Observation (NERC NE/F001487/1 “Dynamic
Earth and Geohazards” theme: http://comet.nerc.ac.uk/).
Appendix 1. International collaboration during the 2010 eruption
at Merapi
Increased satellite tasking frequency and expedited product
generation were supported by several pre-existing national and inter-
national hazard response protocols including the International Char-
ter for Space and Major Disasters (RADARSAT-2 and TerraSAR-X),
the NASA Urgent Request Protocol (ASTER), and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hazards Data Distribution System (GeoEye 1 and
WorldView-2). Thanks to links with European Community project
SAFER (Services and Applications For Emergency Response), the
INGV remote sensing team obtained SAR acquisitions from the
COSMO-SkyMed constellation. Satellite and ground observations
(seismic, deformation, SO2) were gathered at CVGHM's observatory
in Yogyakarta and interpreted by a scientific team working under
crisis circumstances. On 22 October, during the rapid escalation in
monitoring parameters CVGHM contacted the Volcanic Disaster As-
sistance Program (VDAP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and
134 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
U.S. Agency for International Development with a request for moni-
toring assistance utilizing remote sensing. On 27 October, CVGHM in-
vited BRGM (Geological Survey of France) and the University of
Cambridge within the framework of the MIAVITA European project
to join the monitoring team in seismology and gas analysis at
BPPTK, Yogyakarta. On the same day, working through the Interna-
tional Charter for Space and Major Disasters and tasking a variety of
satellite resources, the VDAP team began delivering remote sensing
data to CVGHM. Following a request from the President of Indonesia
on 7 November, VDAP dispatched a crisis response team to join
MIAVITA and Japanese teams in Yogyakarta. The VDAP team contin-
ued providing remote sensing data, assisted with interpretation of
monitoring data and provided seismic equipment to replace instru-
ments destroyed during the eruption and for monitoring lahars. The
MIAVITA team provided seismological interpretation, and gathered
remote sensing data (COSMO-SkyMed, ASTER, OMI, AIRS, IASI, etc.)
to support crisis management by CVGHM. The Université de Savoie
(France) also provided monitoring equipment to help rebuild the
seismic network. A Japanese team from the Disaster and Prevention
Research Institute installed equipment to detect explosions with
infrasound and collected ash samples for analysis.
References
Aisyah, N., Sumarti, S., Sayudi, D.S., Budisantoso, A., Muzani, M., Dwiyono, S., Sunarto,
Kurniadi, 2010. Aktivitas G. Merapi Periode September–Desember 2010 (Erupsi
G. Merapi 26 Oktober–7 November 2010). Bulletin Berkala Merapi 07/03.
Allard, P., Metrich, N., Sabroux, J.C., 2011. Volatile and magma supply to standard erup-
tive activity at Merapi volcano, Indonesia. EGU General Assembly 2011. Geophysi-
cal Research Abstracts 13 (EGU2011-13522).
Andersen, D.J., Lindsley, D.H., Davidson, P.M., 1993. QUILF: a PASCAL program to assess
equilibria among Fe–Mg–Ti oxides, pyroxenes, olivine, and quartz. Computers and
Geosciences 19, 1333–1350.
Andreastuti, S.D., Alloway, B.V., Smith, I.E.M., 2000. A detailed tephrostratigraphic
framework at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia: implications for eruption
predictions and hazard assessment. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Re-
search 100, 51–67.
Beauducel, F., Cornet, F., 1999. Collection and three-dimensional modeling of GPS and
tilt data at Merapi volcano, Java. Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (B1),
725–736.
Borisova, A., Martel, C., Pratomo, I., Toutain, J.-P., Gouy, S., Métaxian, J.-P., Surono, 2011.
First petrologic and geochemical data on the 2010 Merapi eruption (Indonesia).
Geophysical Research Abstracts 13 (EGU2011-14210).
Camus, G., Gourgaud, A., Mossand-Berthommier, P.-C., Vincent, P.-M., 2000. Merapi
(Central Java, Indonesia): an outline of the structural and magmatological evolu-
tion, with a special emphasis to the major pyroclastic events. Journal of Volcanol-
ogy and Geothermal Research 100, 139–163.
Carn, S., Krueger, A., Krotkov, A.J., Arellano, N.A., Yang, S., 2008. Daily monitoring of Ec-
uadorian volcanic degassing from space. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research 176, 141–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.01.029.
Castro, J.M., Dingwell, D.B., 2009. Rapid ascent of rhyolite magma at Chaitén volcano,
Chile. Nature 461, 780–783.
Chadwick, J. P. (2008). Magma crust interaction in volcanic systems: case studies from
Merapi Volcano, Indonesia, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand, and Slieve Gullion,
N. Ireland: PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin, p 52–181.
Chadwick, J.P., Troll, V.R., Ginibre, C., Morgan, D., Gertisser, R., Waight, T.E., Davidson,
J.P., 2007. Carbonate assimilation at Merapi volcano, Java, Indonesia: insights
from crystal isotope stratigraphy. Journal of Petrology 48, 1793–1812.
Charbonnier, S.J., Gertisser, R., 2008. Field observations and surface characteristics of
pristine block-and-ash flow deposits from the 2006 eruption of Merapi volcano,
Java, Indonesia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 177, 971–982.
Chouet, B., 1986. Dynamics of a fluid-driven crack in three dimensions by the finite dif-
ference method. Journal of Geophysical Research 91, 13967–13992.
Chouet, B., 1996. Long-period volcano seismicity: its source and use in eruption fore-
casting. Nature 380, 309–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/380309a0.
Clarisse, L., Coheur, P.F., Prata, A.J., Hurtmans, D., Razavi, A., Phulpin, T., Hadji-Lazaro, J.,
Clerbaux, C., 2008. Tracking and quantifying volcanic SO2 with IASI, the September
2007 eruption at Jebel at Tair. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8, 7723–7734.
Deegan, F.M., Troll, V.R., Freda, C., Misiti, V., Chadwick, J.P., McLeod, C.L., Davidson, J.P.,
2010. Magma–carbonate interaction processes and associated CO2 release at
Merapi volcano, Indonesia: insights from experimental petrology. Journal of Pe-
trology 51, 1027–1051.
Deegan, F.M., Troll, V.R., Freda, C., Misiti, V., Chadwick, J.P., 2011. Fast and furious:
crustal CO2 release at Merapi volcano, Indonesia. Geology Today 27, 63–64.
Endo, E.T., Murray, T., 1999. Real-time seismic amplitude measurement (RSAM): a vol-
cano monitoring and prediction tool. Bulletin of Volcanology 53, 533–545.
Galle, B., Oppenheimer, C., Geyer, A., McGonigle, A.J.S., Edmonds, M., Horrocks, L., 2003.
A miniaturised ultraviolet spectrometer for remote sensing of SO2 fluxes: a new
tool for volcano surveillance. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
119, 241–254.
Gertisser, R., Keller, J., 2002. Trace element and Sr, Nd, Pb and O isotope variations in
medium-K and high-K volcanic rocks from Merapi volcano, central Java, Indonesia:
evidence for the involvement of subducted sediments in Sunda Arc magma gene-
sis. Journal of Petrology 44, 457–489.
Gertisser, R., Keller, J., 2003. Temporal variations in magma composition at Merapi Vol-
cano (Central Java, Indonesia): magmatic cycles during the past 2000 years of ex-
plosive activity. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 123, 1–23.
Giggenbach, W.F., Goguel, R.L., 1988. Collection and analysis of geothermal and volca-
nic water and gas discharge, DSIR., Chemistry Division Report No. CD 2401fourth
edition.
Giggenbach, W.F., Tedesco, D., Sulistiyo, Y., Caprai, A., Cioni, R., Favara, R., Fischer, T.P.,
Hirabayashi, J.-I., Korzhinsky, M., Martini, M., Menyailov, I., Shinohara, H., 2001.
Evaluation of results from the fourth and fifth IAVCEI field workshop on volcanic
gases, Volcano island, Italy and Java, Indonesia. Journal of Volcanology and Geo-
thermal Research 108, 157–172.
Gonnerman, H.M., Manga, M., 2003. Explosive volcanism may not be an inevitable con-
sequence of magma fragmentation. Nature 426, 432–435.
Hammer, J.E., Cashman, K.V., Voight, B., 2000. Magmatic processes revealed by textural
and compositional trends in Merapi dome lavas. Journal of Volcanology and Geo-
thermal Research 100, 165–192.
Hartmann, M.A., 1934. Der Grosse Ausbruch des Vulkanes G. Merapi Mittel Java im
Jahre 1872. Naturkundig Tijdschrift van Nederlandsch‐Indië 94, 189–209.
Hartmann, M.A., 1935. Die Ausbruche des G. Merapi (Mittel Java) bis zum jahre 1883.
Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie, Geologie, und Paleontologie 75, 127–162 B.
Hidayat, D., Voight, B., Langston, C., Ratdomopurbo, A., Ebeling, C., 2000. Broadband
seismic experiment at Merapi Volcano, Java, Indonesia: very-long-period pulses
embedded in multiphase earthquakes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Re-
search 100, 215–231.
Humaida, H., Sumarti, S., Subandriyo, Nandaka, A., Sukarnen, I.G.M., Suharno, Rinekso,
K., Badrijas, Ismai, Sunarto, 2007. Aktivitas Merapi 2006 dan Pemantauan Emisi
SO2 dengan COSPEC, in Erupsi Merapi 2006. Laporan dan Kajian Vulkanisme Erupsi
2006. Departement Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral, Badan Geologi, Pusat Vul-
kanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi.
Jousset, P., Dwipa, D., Beauducel, F., Duquesnoy, T., Diament, M., 2000. Temporal gravity
at Merapi during the 1993–1995 crisis: an insight into the dynamical behavior of
volcanoes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 100, 289–320.
Jousset, P., Sturton, S., Neuberg, J., 2003. Modelling the time-dependent frequency con-
tent of low-frequency volcanic earthquakes. Journal of Volcanology and Geother-
mal Research 128, 201–223.
Jousset, P., Haberland, C., Bauer, K., Arnason, K., 2011. Hengill geothermal volcanic com-
plex (Iceland) characterized by integrated geophysical observations. Geothermics
40, 1–24.
Kulakov, I., Jakovlev, A., Luehr, B.G., 2009. Anisotropic structure beneath central Java
from local earthquake tomography. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 10
(G3), Q02011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GC002109.
Kumagai, H., Chouet, B., 2000. Acoustic properties of a crack containing magmatic or
hydrothermal fluids. Journal of Geophysical Research 105 (B11), 25493–25512.
Kumagai, H., 2009. Volcano seismic signals. Source quantiofication of, Encyclopedia of
Complexity and Systems Science (springer Verlag), pp 9899-9932.
Lahr, J.C., 1999. HYPOELLIPSE: a computer program for determining local earthquake
hypocentral parameters, magnitude and first-motion patterns. Open-file Report
99‐23. USGS, Denver Federal Center, Denver, USA.
Lange, R.A., Frey, H.M., Hector, J., 2009. A thermodynamic model for the plagioclase-
liquid hygrometer/thermometer. American Mineralogist 94, 494–506.
Lavigne, F., Thouret, J.-C., Voight, B., Suwa, H., Sumaryono, A., 2000. Lahars at Merapi
volcano, Central Java: an overview. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Re-
search 100, 423–456.
Le Cloarec, M.-F., Gauthier, P.-J., 2003. Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia: a case
study of radionuclide behavior in volcanic gases and its implications for magma
dynamics at andesite volcanoes. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 2243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001709.
Le Guern, F., Bernard, A., 1982. A new method for sampling and analyzing volcanic sub-
limates; application to Merapi Volcano, Java. Journal of Volcanology and Geother-
mal Research 12, 133–146.
Lesage, P., 2009. Interactive Matlab software for the analysis of seismic volcanic signals.
Computers and Geosciences 35, 2137–2144.
Lube, G., Cronin, S.J., Thouret, J.-C., Surono, 2011. Kinematic characteristics of pyroclas-
tic density currents and controls on their avulsion from natural and engineered
channels. Geological Society of America Bulletin 123 (5–6), 1127–1140.
Melnik, O., Sparks, R.S.J., 1999. Nonlinear dynamics of lava dome extrusion. Nature 402,
37–41.
Michaut, C., Bercovici, D., Sparks, R.S.J., 2009. Ascent and compaction of gas rich magma
and the effects of hysteretic permeability. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 282,
258–267.
Murphy, M.D., Sparks, R.S.J., Barclay, J., Carroll, M.R., Lejeune, A.M., Brewer, T.S.,
Macdonald, R., Black, S., Young, S., 1998. The role of magma mixing in triggering
the current eruption at the Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat, West Indies. Geo-
physical Research Letters 25 (18), 3433–3436.
Murray, T.L., Endo, E.T., 1992. A real-time seismic-amplitude measurement system
(RSAM). United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1966, 5–10.
Neuberg, J., 2000. Characteristics and causes of shallow seismicity in andesite volcanoes.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A 358, 1533–1546.
Newhall, C.G., Melson, W.G., 1983. Explosive activity associated with the growth of vol-
canic domes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 17, 111–131.
 Surono et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 241–242 (2012) 121–135
Newhall, C., Bronto, S., Alloway, B., Banks, N.G., Bahar, I., del Marmol, M.A.,
Hadisantono, R.D., Holcomb, R.T., MCGeehin, J., Miksic, J.N., Rubin, M., Sayudi,
S.D., Sukhyar, R., Andreastuti, S., Tilling, R.I., Torley, R., Trimble, D., Wirakusumah,
A.D., 2000. 10000 years of explosive eruptions of Merapi Volcano, Central Java: ar-
chaeological and modern implications. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Re-
search 100, 9–50.
Nho, E.-Y., Le Cloarec, M.-F., Ardouin, B., Tjetjep, W.S., 1996. Source strength assess-
ment of volcanic trace elements emitted from the Indonesian Arc. Journal of Volca-
nology and Geothermal Research 74, 121–129.
Oppenheimer, C., 2003. Volcanic degassing. In: Holland, H., Turekian, K. (Eds.), The Crust,
Treatise on Geochemistry, vol. 3. Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 123–166 (Ch. 3.04).
Oppenheimer, C., Scaillet, B., Martin, R.S., 2011. Sulfur degassing from volcanoes:
source conditions, surveillance, plume chemistry and impacts. Reviews in Mineralogy
and Geochemistry 73, 363–421.
Pallister, J.S., Hoblitt, R.P., Meeker, G.P., Knight, R.J., Siems, D.F., 1996. Magma mixing at
Mount Pinatubo: petrographic and chemical evidence from the 1991 deposits. In:
Newhall, C.N., Punongbayan, R.S. (Eds.), Fire and Mud, Eruptions and Lahars of
Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. Univ. Washington Press, pp. 687–732.
Posgay, S.H., White, R.A., Weins, D.A., Shore, P.J., Sauter, A.W., Kaipat, J.L., 2005. Seismic-
ity and tilt associated with the 2003 Anatahan eruption sequence. Journal of Volca-
nology and Geothermal Research 146, 60–76.
Prata, A.J., Bernardo, C., 2007. Retrieval of volcanic SO2 column abundance from Atmo-
spheric Infrared Sounder data. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, D20204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007955.
Prouteau, G., Scaillet, B., 2003. Experimental constraints on the origin of the 1991
Pinatubo dacite. Journal of Petrology 44, 2203–2241.
Purbawinata, Aje M., Ratdomopurbo, A., Sinulingga, I.K., Sumarti, S., Suharno, 1996. A
Guide Book for Merapi Volcano. Volcanological Survey of Indonesia. (65 pp.).
Pyle, D., 2000. Sizes of volcanic eruptions. In: Sigurdsson, et al. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Volcanoes. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 263–270.
Ratdomopurbo, A., Poupinet, G., 2000. An overview of the seismicity of Merapi volcano,
(Java, Indonesia), 1983–1995. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
100, 193–214.
Rose, W.I., Delene, D.J., Schneider, D.J., Bluth, G.J.S., Krueger, A.J., Sprod, I., McKee, C.,
Davies, H.L., Ernst, G.G.J., 1995. Ice in the 1994 Rabaul eruption cloud: implications
for volcano hazard and atmospheric effects. Nature 375, 477–479. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/375477a0.
Rutherford, M.J., 2008. Magma ascent rates. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry
69, 241–271.
Sens-Schönfelder, C., Wegler, U., 2006. Passive image interferometry and seasonal varia-
tions of seismic velocities at Merapi volcano, Indonesia. Geophysical Research Letters
33, L21302.
Shinohara, H., 2008. Excess degassing from volcanoes and its role on eruptive and in-
trusive activity. Reviews of Geophysics 46, RG4005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2007RG000244.
Siswowidjoyo, S., Suryo, I., Yokoyama, I., 1995. Magma eruption rates of Merapi volca-
no, Central Java, Indonesia during one century (1890–1992). Bulletin of Volcanol-
ogy 57, 111–116.
Thierry, P., Jousset, P., Le Cozannet, G., 2008. MIAVITA: MItigate and Assess risk from
Volcanic Impact on Terrain and human Activities. General Assembly IAVCEI,
17–22 August 2008, Reykjavik.
135
Tiede, et al., 2005. Modelling the density at Merapi volcano area, Indonesia, via the in-
verse gravimetric problem. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 6, Q09011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GC000986 (13 pp.).
Toutain, J.-P., Sortino, F., Baubron, J.-C., Richon, P., Surono, Sumarti, S., Nonell, A., 2009.
Structure and CO2 budget of Merapi volcano during inter-eruptive periods. Bulletin
of Volcanology 71, 815–826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00445-009-0266-x.
Tupper, A., Carn, S.A., Davey, J., Kamada, Y., Potts, R., Prata, F., Tokuno, M., 2004. An
evaluation of volcanic cloud detection techniques during recent significant erup-
tions in the western ‘Ring of Fire’. Remote Sensing of Environment 91, 27–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.02.004.
van Padang, M.N., 1930. The eruption of Merapi (Middle Java) in the year 1930.
Zeitschrift Vulkanology 14, 135–148.
Voight, B., Constantine, E.K., Sismowidjoyo, S., Torley, R., 2000a. Historical eruptions of
Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia, 1768–1998. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research 100, 69–138.
Voight, B., Young, K.D., Hidayat, D., Subandrio, Purbawinata, M.A., Ratdomopurbo, A.,
Suharna, Panut, Sayudi, D.S., LaHusen, R., Marso, J., Murray, T.L., Dejean, M.,
Iguchi, M., Ishihara, K., 2000b. Deformation and seismic precursors to dome-
collapse and fountain-collapse nuées ardentes at Merapi Volcano, Java, Indonesia,
1994–1998. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 100, 261–288.
Wagner, D., Koulakov, I., Rabbel, W., Luehr, B.-G., Wittwer, A., Kopp, H., Bohm, M., Asch,
G., Scientists, M.E.R.A.M.E.X., 2007. Joint inversion of active and passive seismic
data in Central Java. Geophysical Journal International 170 (2), 923–932. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03435.x 2007.
Wallace, P.J., 2001. Volcanic SO2 emissions and the abundance and distribution of
exsolved gas in magma bodies. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
108, 86–106.
Walter, T.R., Wang, R., Zimmer, M., Grosser, H., Lühr, B., Ratdomopurbo, A., 2007. Vol-
canic activity influenced by tectonic earthquakes: static and dynamic stress trig-
gering at Mt. Merapi. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L05304. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/ 2006GL028710.
Wegler, U., Luehr, B., 2001. Scattering behaviour at Merapi volcano (Java) revealed from
an active seismic experiment. Geophysical Journal International 145, 579–592.
Westrich, H.R., Gerlach, T.M., 1992. Magmatic gas source for the stratospheric SO2
cloud from the June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geology 20, 867–870.
White, R.A., Power, J.A., 2001. Distal volcano-tectonic earthquakes: diagnosis and use in
eruption forecasting. EOS Transactions 82, 47.
Young, K., Voight, B., Subandriyo, Sajiman, Miswanto, Casadevall, T.J., 2000. Ground
deformation at Merapi Volcano, Java, Indonesia: distances changes, June 1988–
October 1995. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 100, 233–260.
Zimmer, M., Erzinger, J., 2003. Continuous H2O, CO2, 222Rn and temperature measure-
ments on Merapi Volcano, Indonesia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Re-
search 125, 25–38.
Zlotnicki, J., Bof, M., Perdereau, L., Yvetot, P., Tjetjep, W., Sukhyar, R., Purbawinata, M.A.,
Suharno, 2000. Magnetic monitoring at Merapi volcano, Indonesia. Journal of Vol-
canology and Geothermal Research 100, 321–336.